Pico v. Cuyas

47 Cal. 180
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1873·No. No. 3,526·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

By the Court, Niles, J.:

The Court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to prove the alleged partnership between the plaintiff and defendant. The evidence, if admitted, would have shown a state of facts almost identical with those presented in the case of Pico v. Cuyas, ante, p. 174, where we held similar evidence admissible in an action to recover the rent claimed to be due upon the lease. It was equally admissible in defense of a summary proceeding for a forfeiture of the lease for non-payment of rent. For this error the [181]*181judgment must be reversed- upon the authority of the case cited.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did not express an opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pico v. Cuyas, 47 Cal. 180 (Cal. 1873).

47 Cal. 180 (Pico v. Cuyas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Birkemeier v. Orino
123 P.2d 185 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1942)
Bailey v. Crowell
34 N.Y.S. 53 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1895)
Pico v. Cuyas
48 Cal. 639 (California Supreme Court, 1874)